Dr. D. Sudhir S/O Late D Ashok Rao vs Dr. Jayalakshmi Musale D/O Maruthi ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 6124 Kant

Karnataka High Court

Dr. D. Sudhir S/O Late D Ashok Rao vs Dr. Jayalakshmi Musale D/O Maruthi ... on 12 June, 2025

Author: R.Devdas

Bench: R.Devdas

                                                   -1-
                                                              NC: 2025:KHC-D:7572-DB
                                                             MFA No. 101065 of 2024


                      HC-KAR



                         IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

                                 DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025

                                                PRESENT
                                  THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS
                                                  AND
                                 THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND
                       MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO.101065 OF 2024 (GW)
                      BETWEEN:

                      DR. D. SUDHIR
                      S/O. LATE D. ASHOK RAO,
                      AGE. 45 YEARS, OCC. ASSOCIATE
                      PROFESSOR IN VIMS BALLARI,
                      R/O. DOOR NO.83, WARD NO.27,
                      JAWARI STREET, COWL BAZAR,
                      BALLARI.
                                                                         ...APPELLANT
                      (BY SRI. K.L. PATIL, ADVOCATE AND
                          SRI. S.S. BETURMATH, ADVOCATE)

                      AND:

                      DR. JAYALAKSHMI MUSALE
Digitally signed by
                      D/O. MARUTHI MUSALE,
CHANDRASHEKAR         AGE. 35 YEARS, OCC. GOVT. MEDICAL OFFICER,
LAXMAN KATTIMANI
Location: HIGH        R/O. SATHYA SAI SUPER SPECIALITY HOSPITAL,
COURT OF              OLD COURT LANE NEAR TMC, CHIKKODI,
KARNATAKA
                      DIST. BELAGAVI.
                                                                       ...RESPONDENT
                      (BY SRI. SHRIKANT T.PATIL, ADVOCATE)

                             THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL IS FILED UNDER
                      SECTION 47(A) OF GUARDIANS AND WARDS ACT 1890, PRAYING TO
                      SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 08.01.2024 IN G&W.C. NO.7/2023
                      PASSED BY THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL JUDGE FAMILY COURT,
                      BALLARI AND CONSEQUENTLY DISMISS THE I.A. NO.5 FILED UNDER
                      ORDER 7 RULE 11(D) R/W. SECTION 151 CPC AND SECTION 13 OF
                      FAMILY COURTS IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND
                      ETC.,.
                              -2-
                                        NC: 2025:KHC-D:7572-DB
                                       MFA No. 101065 of 2024


HC-KAR



     THIS MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL, COMING ON FOR
ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS
UNDER:

CORAM:    THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS
           AND
           THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K V ARAVIND


                    ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS)

This Miscellaneous first appeal has been filed by the

appellant who was the petitioner before the learned

Principal Judge, Family Court at Ballari, aggrieved of the

return of the petition to be present before the appropriate

District Court in terms of Section 9 of the Guardians and

Wards Act, 1890.

2. On hearing the learned counsel for the

appellant and the respondent, we find that the petition

was filed by the appellant herein under Section 7 R/W

Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 and

Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardian ship Act,

1956 for grant of custody of the child to the petitioner. An

application was filed by the respondent under Order 7 Rule

NC: 2025:KHC-D:7572-DB

HC-KAR

11(d) of the CPC seeking rejection of the plaint, on the

ground that it was barred by law for having no territorial

jurisdiction.

3. Although, we find that the respondent has

quoted a wrong provision and the correct provision would

have been Rule 10 of Order 7 which enables return of the

suit for want of jurisdiction to be presented before a Court

having jurisdiction, nevertheless, we find that the learned

Prl. Judge, Family Court has rightly noticed sub section (1)

of Section 9 of Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 which

provides that if the application is with respect to the

guardianship of the person of the minor, it shall be made

to the District Court having jurisdiction in the place where

the minor ordinarily resides. From the facts falling out of

the petition, the learned judge has noticed that the

petitioner has admitted that he was working as an

Assistant Professor at VIMS, Bellari. The respondent on the

other hand, is residing with her family members at

Chikkodi. It has been alleged in the petition that the

NC: 2025:KHC-D:7572-DB

HC-KAR

respondent-wife has taken away the ward in question

along with her and the child has been residing with

respondent-wife at Chikkodi since 2019. In that view of

the matter, the learned Judge has come to a conclusion

that the petition was required to be filed in the Court of

District Judge at Belagavi. In that view of the matter, we

do not see any infirmity in the impugned order.

4. The appeal is accordingly disposed of.

5. However, we should notice the submission of

the learned counsel for the appellant that since there is a

Family court at Belagavi, the petition may be presented

before the Principal Family Judge at Belagavi and not

before Principal District and Sessions Judge. If it is true

that a Family Court has been established at Belagavi and

since appeal was presented before the Family Court, at

Ballari, it is open for the appellant to present before the

Principal Family Court at Belagavi.

Ordered accordingly.

NC: 2025:KHC-D:7572-DB

HC-KAR

The concerned Court shall make all endeavors to

dispose of the petition as expeditiously as possible.

Sd/-

(R.DEVDAS) JUDGE

Sd/-

(K V ARAVIND) JUDGE

HMB CT: UMD